Feature request on UT3 : a smart autoteambalance

[fuegerstef]

I always teamswitch when I'm on the winning team and teams are imbalanced.

That's why I lose so often - because I always end up on the sucky team, no matter how quick my computer loads the map. :P

TBH, I switch when there is a slight chance that my switch can help. If it is hopeless from the beginning I ask if another one switches with me to the losing team when the team-numbers allow it.

[Lert]

I always teamswitch when I'm on the winning team and teams are imbalanced.

That's why I lose so often - because I always end up on the sucky team, no matter how quick my computer loads the map. :P

[fuegerstef]

Heh heh. On public servers, I'll often swap teams if the number of players gets imbalanced and if my team is winning. After changing teams, I'll often grumble to myself, "I capped a couple flags for those ********?"

I change often too, when there is an imbalance. But swapping is something different then getting swapped.

[DagnyTaggart]

TBH: I wouldn't like to put all efforts into winning just to be swapped to the losing side.

Heh heh. On public servers, I'll often swap teams if the number of players gets imbalanced and if my team is winning. After changing teams, I'll often grumble to myself, "I capped a couple flags for those ********?"

[olly]

Games in general have to load, so what if while loading you test the players a little, with a little 2d platform checking you reaction times and accuracy with the mouse. Might only that 10 sec to get a jist of their ability?

Course then there Teamwork, Tactics, Damage ratios?

[Piglet]

Heres an idea. If the teams are judged unfair* why not just swap the top player from the winning team with the bottom player from the losing team if numbers are similar. If not just transfer the top player to the losing side

We manually use the "admin flip" command to swap a good player from one team with a poor player from the other at the start of a map if there are really unbalanced teams by skill.

That does mean having to "know" your players though - and that you'll only get with Active Admin, not with any stats based automated tool. It's just too hard to program it.

[DX-GAME]

Team balance by skill.

The only way this would work is by splitting up a team every round by every single matches numbers.

Simple fact, players that are good at one map arent as good in others. To say that you are equaly great on all maps sells you short in your ability.

Based on ranking, those that have more time in would always come up higher than those that dont. Its simply not a good way to judge skill level, unless of course you take time played into consideration. In the end, methinks thats just to much to ask and still be able to have fast server travel.

Much easier to just base it on end of round score and break up the teams evenly by their performance from the last round. New players to the server per round would not get a choice being broken up to what ever team need players for slot balance.

[»madMar†y»]

I'm not very happy with the current autobalance features on some servers...sometimes when you're playing a nice match you get replaced to the other side, just because some1 just left what normally could be ok...but the current system doesn't look at the player skills but only whatches who joined last to the game or something like that and that doesn't really help the teams.

The thing I noticed after playing many matches is that the good players are usually the guys that never switch and what I think is a good thing. The players on the bottom of the list on the other hand are 95% the ones that mess up the teams. Maybe it would be a good thing to block those players from switching. When they wan't to be able to switch they need to gain some points first. On a 16 player server for example that could mean that the bottom 2 or 3 players of each team would not be able to switch. Though it's quite hard to invent a good system so that is probably not going to work either.

[Fixxer.Linux.T32]

I've read many of the comment since my first post.
All of those are interesting, but, remember, simply trying to sort the players using their "standard in-game" rankings is far better than simply "randomizing" teams.

Of course, you can't do anything for players switching their seats in front of the computer.
It's planned however, in UT5, to drive rocketted-webcams (TM), that will launch conventional missiles over the players switching in non-authorized way. UT6 do implement depleted-UA minigun turrets in the webcams.
Of course, you could also dream about perfect stats. But, from what I can see from all the games I play is that good players have good stats and bad players have bad stats.
Play against a team of players which score all a party at over 150 pph, within a newbie team, and I can predict that you won't even be able to see the first node that the server will already have switched the next map, because you will have lose in less time that it takes to tell !

To say that this idea is certainly not perfect, but could help better balancing the teams.
And we can imagine also a server switch that would allow to disable this "smart team balancing" for those who are sick about this idea !

[DeathByDribbling]

The big question is how accurate the stats are. While I do agree that ut2004 stats are far from perfect the top scorers in any game type generally have the highest stats. To just distribute by those settings would be a reasonable basis for teams. I'm sure it wouldn't be perfect but it's bound to significantly improve the number of decient games and reduce the number of boring walkovers.

Obviously better stats recording would work even better - that's another job the ut3 developers have to do, particularly for the non DM gametypes - e.g. ons+ for ut2004 ons does a better job of scoring ons.

[_Lynx]

Shambler's working on a "balance by skill" addin to his TitanTeamFix balancer.

We currently have it llinked directly to a MySQL database where it's reading and writing - so I expect it'll be up and running soon.

oh, wow. Can't wait to see that - interaction with MySQL from within US looks quite promising.

[X-Cannon]

Actually there is a feature like this already implemented on purepressure.com

sweet friggin set up they have. The only caveat is that since it's fairly new there haven't been alot of games played other than TAM. The more games played the better the skill level balancing.

Right now over at warstriven (formerly onscentral) we are trying to figure out a good night to get everybody together and play in pugs. I figure when UT3 hits and there is a massive influx of players, more games will be played and the skill level for the site will work that much better.

[superwarrio]

to say it myself, i truly think featur like this would be awesome, but implementing it anywhere else than dm, would be very very very difficult, and inaccurate, and judging from previus posts maybe but unlikely in ctf.

but then it would be way better than the current system

so a bit of newthinking probably from epics side would probably be great cause i can't think of anything for warfare right now

[Luseferous]

Yes, everybody trying to be only the second player will work out well. "I must do some suicides quickliy to lose points or I will be on the losing side.

Then it would work, If the top 3 players are trying to out cr^p each other then the teams will be less unbalanced

Seriously though its usually one of the top couple of players who will swap teams to balance the game anyway.

[fuegerstef]

Heres an idea. If the teams are judged unfair* why not just swap the top player from the winning team with the bottom player from the losing team if numbers are similar. If not just transfer the top player to the losing side.

Yes, everybody trying to be only the second player will work out well. "I must do some suicides quickliy to lose points or I will be on the losing side."

TBH: I wouldn't like to put all efforts into winning just to be swapped to the losing side.

I say, balance it before the match and then let everybody try as hard as they can without being punished for being good.